HOW  THE  MONEY  GOES. 


LETTER  FROM  THE  CITIZENS'  ASSOCIATION 

TO  RICHARD  O'GOEMAN, 
EEL  ATI  VE  TO  HIS  OFFICE, 

Citizens'  Association  of  New-York,  [ 
No.  813  Broadway,  Nov.  12,  1867-  \ 

Richard  0' Gorman,  Esq.,  Counsel  to  the  Corporation  of  the 
City  of  New-  York. 

Sir, — The  Citizens'  Association  of  the  City  of  New- York 
begs  leave  to  direct  your  attention  to  the  following  letter 
addressed  by  you  to  its  Committee  on  Nominations,  and 
also  to  certain  matters  connected  with  your  department  and 
the  administration  of  your  office  : 

"  Nkw-York,  Nov.  6, 1865. 

"  Gkntlimkn, — I  have  received  your  letter  informing  me  that  the  Citi- 
zens' Association  of  New- York  have  nominated  me  as  their  cand'date  for 
the  office  of  Corporation  Counsel  at  the  coming  Charter  Election. 

"  I  am  very  sensible  of  the  honor  thus  conferred  upon  me.  for  I  am 
well  assured  that  your  choice  would  not  have  fallen  upon  me  if  you  were 
not  satisfied  that  my  election  to  this  responsible  office  would  subserve  the 
best  interests  of  our  noble  city,  and  that  I  woxdd  be  as  earnest  a*  yourselves 
to  defend  its  rights,  assert  its  honor  and  protect  its  finances  from  adverse 
influences,  from  whatever  quarter,  or  in  whatever  shape  they  may  assail  it. 

"  The  office  of  Corporation  Counsel  is  a  purely  civic  office,  having  no 


An 
°IV27 

2 

necessary  concern  with  political  parties,  or  with  the  great  political  issues 
which  agitate  society.  It  is  au  office  of  honor,  indeed,  but,  at  the  same 
time,  of  labor,  care  and  responsibility.  The  lawyer  who  has  the  City  of 
New-York  for  his  client,  and  endeavors,  honestly  and  efficiently,  to  dis- 
charge his  duties  to  that  client,  will  have  his  hands  full  and  uo  easy  task. 

"  With  these  views  of  the  importance  of  the  office  before  you,  you 
have  tendered  me  your  nomination  and  pledged  me  your  cordial  support ; 
and,  with  these  views  before  me,  I  gratefully  and  proudly  accept  your 
nomination  and  your  promise  ;  and,  in  return,  I  pledge  myself  to  you,  if 
elected  to  this  office,  to  devote  all  the  strength  and  energies  I  possess,  and  to 
use  all  the  powers  the  office  may  afford,  to  aid  you  in  your  desire  to  insure 
for  the  city  and  its  citizens,  of  whatever  party,  a  future  of  progress  and 
improvement. 

I  am,  very  truly  and  respectfully  yours, 

RICHARD  O'GORMAN." 

You  entered  upon  the  duties  of  your  office  on  January  1, 
1866 — about  one  year  and  ten  months  ago.  You  are  the 
legal  adviser,  the  "law}7er"  of  the  Corporation  of  New-York 
and  the  Board  of  Supervisors,  and  your  duties  may  be 
simply  summed  up  thus  : 

1.  To  defend  the  Corporation  and  the  County  against  illegal  claims. 

2.  To  commence  suits  on  behalf  of  the  City  when  directed  by  the 
Common  CoudciI. 

3.  To  give  opinions  on  the  law  when  directed  by  the  Common  Council 
or  the  Board  of  Supervisors. 

As  above  stated,  you  have  been  in  office  for  about  twenty- 
two  months,  and,  in  that  time,  the  city  and  county  has  been 
compelled  to  pay  for  the  legal  services  above  described  the 
sum  of  $152,974.32. 

In  order  that  you  may  understand  why  your  attention 
is  called  to  the  amount  which  the  city  has  paid  you,  we 
simply  state  that,  in  looking  for  the  results  of  such  a  vast 
outlay  for  lawyers'  fees,  we  find  that,  during  the  twenty-two 
months  you  have  been  in  office,  judgments  have  been  re- 
covered against  the  city  to  the  amount  of  $474,589.78. 

The  Citizens'  Association  desires  to  present  the  following 


8 


facts  to  you  in  relation  to  these  judgments,  in  order  that 
you  may  explain  them,  if  possible : 

It  appears  from  the  records  of  the  several  Courts  that  the 
sum  of  $194,004.20  was  recovered  duriug  your  term  of 
office  by  judgment  against  the  city  for  advertising  the  pro- 
ceedings and  notices  of  the  Common  Council  in  certain 
local  papers.  This  vast  amount  was  recovered  in  open 
defiance  of  the  law. 

By  the  Act  of  May  4,  1866,  the  sum  of  $30,000  was  appro- 
priated for  such  advertising  in  1866,  and  it  was  expressly 
enacted  that  no  greater  sum  should  be  expended  for  that 
purpose,  and  that  the  city  should  not  be  liable,  on  any  con- 
tract, for  any  greater  sum,  and  that  no  judgment  should 
be  entered  against  the  City  of  New- York  for  any  sum  for 
such  purpose  after  said  $30,000  had  been  expended. 

By  the  Act  of  April  23,  1867,  the  sum  of  $50,000  was 
appropriated  for  such  advertising ;  and  it  was  declared  that 
no  greater  sum  should  be  expended  for  such  purpose,  and 
that  the  city  should  not  be  liable,  on  any  contract,  for  any 
greater  sum,  and  that  no  judgment  should  be  entered 
against  the  city  for  any  sum  for  such  purpose  after  said 
§50,000  had  been  expended. 

The  sums  so  appropriated  in  1866  and  1867  have  been 
duly  expended  by  the  Comptroller  in  paying  for  advertising 
during  the  two  years;  and  the  amount,  $194,004.20,  re- 
covered by  judgment  as  above  stated,  was  in  excess  of  such 
appropriation,  and,  therefore,  illegal. 

It  is  singular  that  you,  the  lawyer  of  the  city,  bound  by 
your  oath  of  office  to  enforce  those  provisions  of  the  laws  of 
1866  and  1867,  which  had  been  passed  to  protect  the  city, 
permitted  them  to  be  openly  violated  and  defied,  and 
allowed  such  judgments  to  be  unlawfully  entered. 

Most  of  those  judgments  are  entered  in  the  Superior 
Court  and  Court  of  Common  Pleas.  In  the  Supreme  Court 
some  of  such  illegal  claims  were  brought  in  the  Spring  and 


4 


Summer  of  1866,  and  you  defended  the  city  successfully 
against  them.  The  claimants  appealed  to  the  General 
Term,  and  the  General  Term  unanimously  rejected  all  such 
claims,  declared  the  Acts  above  mentioned  constitutional, 
and  saved  the  city  from  attempted  plunder. 

So  far  it  was  well.  But  the  baffled  claimants,  thus  shut 
out  from  the  Supreme  Court,  brought  their  illegal  claims 
in  the  Superior  Court  and  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas. 
Here  it  is  surmised  that  you  again  appeared  to  defend  the 
city ;  but  how  you  did  so  will  be  inquired  into  further  on. 
Those  Courts  gave  judgments  against  the  city,  and  allowed 
those  claims  in  the  face  of  the  Acts  of  1866  and  1867,  passed 
for  the  protection  of  the  Corporation ;  but  you  took  no 
appeal  from  these  judgments  to  the  Court  of  Appeals, 
although,  from  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court,  it  was 
probable  that  you  could  have  had  the  decisions  of  the  Su- 
perior Court  and  the  Common  Pleas  Judges  reversed. 

The  Association  leaves  it  as  matter  for  inquiry  why  you 
have  neglected  the  interests  of  the  city.  It  also  deems  it 
interesting  to  examine  the  manner  in  which  you  defended 
those  illegal  claims  in  the  last-named  Courts.  It  appears 
from  the  records  that  the  claimants  in  such  suits  (where 
sometimes  as  much  as  $34,000  was  involved  in  a  single 
case)  gave  no  detailed  statements  of  the  items,  prices,  or 
dates  of  the  work  for  which  they  demanded  judgment.  It 
also  appears  that  instead  of  compelling  such  statements  to 
be  produced  and  filed,  or  moving  the  Court  to  have  the 
complaints  of  such  claimants  made  more  definite,  you 
merely  interposed  an  answer  setting  forth  that  there  was  no 
appropriation  to  pay  the  claims.  Owing  to  this  want  of 
particulars,,  either  in  your  papers  or  the  claimants',  the 
Court  had  no  information  as  to  whether  the  work  alleged  to 
be  done  was  done  prior  to  or  after  the  passage  of  the  pro- 
tective laws  we  have  cited,  and  therefore  could  not  know 
that  those  laws  applied  to  such  claims,  for  it  cannot  be  pre- 


5 


suraed  that  those  Courts  would  have  permitted  judgments 
to  be  recovered  against  the  city  for  those  portions  of  the 
claims  that  accrued  subsequent  to  the  passage  of  the  pro- 
tective laws. 

It  also  appears  that  in  several  of  such  suits  the  answer 
interposed  by  you  was  not  even  verified,  and  the  claimants, 
by  reason  of  your  neglect,  had  the  right  to,  and  did  by 
summary  motion,  according  to  the  practice  of  the  Courts, 
demand  and  obtain  judgment  in  their  favor. 

And  the  records  of  the  Courts  now  show  the  singular 
spectacle  of  judgments  for  such  vast  sums  as  $34,000,  &c, 
obtained  against  the  city  upon  a  record  consisting  of  a 
couple  of  half  sheets  of  paper,  wherein  not  a  particular 
date,  nor  item,  nor  specific  charge  of  any  kind  appears. 

The  Association  also  asks  for  an  explanation  of  the'  ex- 
traordinary neglect  of  a  plain  precaution,  by  which  it  hap- 
pens that  there  is  nothing  now  in  the  records  of  the  Courts  to 
prevent  the  same  claimant  from  bringing  suits  for  the  same 
claims  and  obtaining  a  second  judgment 

The  following  are  the  judgments  so  obtained  for  adver- 
tising the  proceedings  of  the  Common  Council : 


Four  judgments  of  the  New- York  Transcript  Si 02,191  89 

Four  judgments  of  the  New- York  Daily  News   79.038  15 

One  judgment  of  the  New- York  Sun   6,880  10 

One  judgment  of  the  Metropolitan  Record   1,815  29 

One  judgment  of  the  Journal  of  Commerce   2,771  16 

Two  judgments  of  the  Sunday  Atlas.   993  75 

One  judgment  of  the  Sunday  Times   313  86 


Total  8194,004  20 


And  this  amount  of  judgments  is  obtained  in  defiance  of 
the  laws  of  1866  and  1867. 

There  are  also  judgments  obtained  for  alleged  stationery, 
blank  books  and  printing  work  furnished  to  the  Corporation, 
which  are  equally  unlawful.    An  appropriation  for  these 


6 


expenses  was  made  in  the  same  Acts  of  the  Legislature  of 
1866  and  1867.  and  a  like  prohibition  was  enacted  against 
an j  judgments  being  entered  for  any  claim  therefor  after 
such  appropriation  was  expended.  Yet  in  the  last  twenty 
months  the  following  judgments  for  stationery,  &c.,  over  and 
above  the  ample  appropriations  made  by  law,  were  obtained 
in  the  same  manner  as  those  for  advertising,  viz.  : 

Judgment  of  E.  Jones,  of  Dec.  17,  1866   $9,298  02 

Judgment  of  E.  Jones,  of  March  14, 1867   21,522  24 

Judgment  of  E.  Jones,  of  April  10,  1867   62,240  13 

Total  $93,060  39 

The  Association  also  asks  your  attention  to  the  fact  that 
even  if  the  laws  of  1866  and  1867  were  disregarded  by  the 
Superior  Court  and  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  there  was  and 
is  another  law  with  which  you  are  bound  to  be  familiar, 
that  constitutes  a  bar  to  these  claims.  The  Charter  of  the 
City  requires  all  work  done  for,  or  supplies  furnished  to  the 
city,  amounting  to  more  than  $250,  to  be  done  by  contract ; 
and  by  the  Corporation  ordinances,  "printing''  only  is  ex- 
cepted from  the  operation  of  tbe  provision. 

There  were  no  contracts  made  for  this  $194,004.20  worth 
of  advertising,  nor  for  the  stationery. 

The  parties  commenced  suit  and  obtained  judgment, 
while  you  failed  to  lay  before  the  Court  as  a  defence  the 
fact  that  the  Charter  of  the  City  barred  the  recovery  of  all 
such  claims. 

The  Association  also  desires  an  explanation  of  the  fol- 
lowing : 

In  the  spring  of  this  year,  just  after  adjournment  of  the 
Legislature,  you  addressed  a  communication  to  the  Comp- 
troller, in  which  you  recommended  him  to  pay  all  these 
judgments.  You  argued  at  length  that,  notwithstanding 
the  Legislature  expressly  enacted  in  the  Act  of  April  28, 


7 


1867,  that  no  such  judgments  should  be  paid,  yet  neverthe- 
less the  Comptroller  ought  to  disregard  the  law  aud  pay  out 
the  city  money  to  satisfy  the  claimants. 

Although  you  had  defended  the  city  against  those  claims 
on  the  ground  that  they  were  unlawful,  although  the  Su- 
preme Court  of  the  State  had  decided  in  accordance  with 
that  view,  yet  you  urged  the  Comptroller  to  pay  them. 

The  Association  is  unable  to  reconcile  your  earnest  en- 
deavor to  have  these  claims  paid,  when  they  had  a  right  to 
expect  that  you  would  have  taken  an  appeal  from  the 
judgments  entered,  instead  of  urging  their  payment  by  the 
city. 

The  Association  finds  that  during  these  twenty-two 
months  you  have  drawn  from  the  city,  for  the  expenses  of 
your  Department,  the  sum  of  $152,974.32. 

The  items  which  make  up  that  sum  are  briefly  as  follows : 


Your  salary  as  Counsel  to  the  Corporation  $18,333  33 

Tour  salary  as  Legal  Adviser  to  the  Board  of  Supervisors..      3,666  66 

Your  salary  as  member  of  the  Board  of  Revision   1,833  33 

Your  allowance  for  clerk  hire   22,000  00 

Your  extra  counsel  fee  in  the  suit  to  enforce  taxation  of 

bank  stockholders   10,000  00 

Your  bills  for  stationer}-,  blank  books,  tape,  sealing  wax,  ink, 
pens,  paper,  envelopes,  scissors,  sponges,  cups,  diaries,  files, 

ink-stands,  pencils,  Ac   1,501  25 

Your  bills  for  coal,  wood,  labor,  clock,  soap,  looking-glasses, 
screens,  porterage,  shades,  mats,  Brussels  carpet,  matting, 
oil-cloth,  book  cases,  desks,  signs,  spittoons,  Ac,  (drawn 

on  the  appropriations  for  cleaning  and  supplies)   1.504  54 

Your  bills  for  alterations  and  repairs  to  the  office  you  oc- 
cupy, lumber,  plastering,  painting,  heaters,  and  for  wood, 
coal,  labor,  gas  fixtures,  gas  pipes,  tables,  desks,  chairs, 
bookcases,  racks,  wardrobes,  screens  and  carpeting,  (drawn 
from  appropriation  for  construction  of  public  buildings)..  2,642  79 
Your  bills  for  printing    (drawn  from  appropriations  for 

"printing"]   85  00 

Your  bills  for  the  pay  of  extra  lawyers  employed  by  you  to 

defend  the  city   44,61150 


8 


Your  bills  for  u  contingent  expenses  of  office,"  for  which 

you  give  no  items   S8.330  35 

Your  bills  for  costs  paid,  referees'  fees,  copies  legislative 
bills,  searches,  printing  points,  law  books,  reporting  sur- 
veys, serving  subpoenas,  witness'  fees,  sheriffs  fees,  Clerk's 
fees,  Register's  fees,  blanks  and  subscription  to  the 
Albany  Argus   13,334  31 

Your  bills  for  rent  of  your  offices   5,131  26 

Amounts  certified  by  you  as  couusel  fees  for  extra  lawyers, 

in  the  case  of  taxation  of  bank  stockholders   20,000  00 


Total  $152,974  32 

The  Association  desires  to  call  your  attention  to  the  item 
in  the  above  account  of  $8,330.35  for  "contingent  expenses 
of  your  office,"  for  which  you  furnish  no  items  whatever. 
It  appears  from  the  other  charges  made  by  you  that  every 
necessary  expense  would  be  met  by  the  other  sums,  and 
yet  in  twenty-two  months  you  spend  $3,330.35  for  expenses 
without  a  name.  The  following  items  are  duly  particular- 
ized and  charged  by  you,  exclusive  of  the  $8,330.35,  and 
seem  to  cover  every  imaginable  "  contingent  expense." 


Wrapping  paper   §87 

Ink  and  inkstands   83 

Rubber  rings  and  bands.. . .  69 
Writing  paper,  note  paper, 

cap  paper,  &c   657 

Blank  books,  account  books, 

kc   200 

Envelopes   109 

Pens  and  penholders   108 

Blotting  paper   45 

Red  tape  and  silk   40 

Pencils  and  holders   38 

Shears   21 

Sponges  and  cups   21 

l^aw  diaries   15 

Newspaper  and  other  files.  9 

Pins   9 


00 
00 
00 


57  00 


00  | 
00  I 
50 
00  j 

oo  I 

00 
00 
00 
00 
00 
00 


3  clothes  racks  

Gas  fixtures  

I  book  rack  

Looking-glasses  

Signs  

Cases,  with  holes  

Spittoons  

Umbrella  stands  

New  heating  register  

Screen  

Taking  down  awnings..  .  .. 

Taking  down  stoves  

42  tons  of  coal  

35  loads  of  wood  

99  yards  of  Brussels  car- 
pets  

63  yards  of  matting  


811  75 
70  20 
53  50 

25  00 
101  50 

26  00 

8  25 
7  00 

13  15 
10  75 
6  00 

9  79 
844  40 


313  21 
146  87 


9 


Paper  weights  

  S9  00 

|  Carpenters',  masons',  paint- 

Mucilage  

  9  00 

ers'  and  plasterers'  work 

Cash  boxes  

  11  00 

in  Februarv,  1866  

$56 

G3 

Envelope  boxes  

  T  00 

Carpenters',  masons',  paint- 

Sealing wax.  . 

ers'  and  plasterers'  work 

Twine  

in  March,  1866  

119 

03 

Paper  cutters  

  4  00 

Carpenters',  masons',  paint- 

Blank cards  

  3  50 

ers'  ami  plasterers'  work 

Eyelets  

294 

90 

Bell   

Carpenters',  masons',  paint- 

Erasers  

ers'  and  plasterers'  work 

Clips  

in  November,  1866. 

518 

88 

Seals  

Carpenters',  masons',  pain:- 

Arm  -rests  

ers'  and  plasterers'  work 

28  cbairs  

....  250  00 

in  August.  1 867  

203 

10 

3  desks  

....  419  75 

Soap   dish,   screen,  clock 

3  tables  

and  cartage  and  labor  on 

47 

50 

Screen,  coal   hod,  tire  set 

...    57  50 

and  cartage  on  the  sarae. 

15 

75 

It  is  supposed  that  it  would  be  difficult  to  name  any 
article  necessary  for  the  use  of  your  office  which  does  not 
appear  in  the  ample  list  above,  and  it  is  surprising  that  in 
twenty-two  months  the  sum  of  $8,330.35  should  be  absorbed 
by  you  for  other    contingent  expenses  of  office.'" 

It  also  appears  that  you  had  charged  in  other  accounts 
for  the  fees  you  had  paid  to  the  Courts  and  Clerks'  office 
for  reporting,  referees,  witnesses,  subp<enas,  law  books, 
blanks,  certificates,  &c. 

The  Association  now  proposes  to  direct  your  attention  to 
a  most  serious  matter. 

By  the  Charter  of  the  City  of  New-York  and  other  Acts 
of  the  Legislature,  you  are  constituted  the  legal  adviser  and 
counsel  in  all  suits  by  and  against  the  City  and  County. 
You  are  paid  a  salary  of  $13,000  per  annum  :  you  are  also 
allowed  $12,000  per  annum,  with  which  to  pay  competent 
clerks  and  assistants:  and  yet  since  you  have  been  in  office 
o 


10 


you  have  employed  about  fifteen  extra  lawyers,  whose 
charges  are  high,  and  paid  them  fees  to  the  aggregate  of 
$41,611.50,  of  which  amount  one  of  these  lawyers  alone 
received  $21,727.50,  and  another  of  them  $9,775. 

Notwithstanding  this  immense  outlay  for  extra  lawyers, 
judgments  to  the  amount  of  $171,589.78  were  entered 
against  the  City,  of  which  over  $200,000  are  in  direct  viola- 
tion to  the  law. 

But,  in  justice  to  the  legal  gentlemen  emplo}red  by  you, 
it  ought  to  be  stated  that  in  those  advertising  and  printing 
claims  which  you  advised  the  Comptroller  to  pay,  you  did 
not  employ  any  of  them  to  defend  the  city.  If  you  had 
done  so,  it  is  probable  they  would  have  produced  a  different 
result.  If  the  fact  that  you  did  not  retain  eminent  counsel 
to  defend  the  city  against  the  illegal  advertising  and 
stationery  claims  be  taken  in  connection  with  the  fact  that 
you  afterwards  urged  the  Comptroller  to  pay  all  those 
claims,  but  one  inference  can  be  drawn — that  you  did  not 
wish  those  claims  to  be  defeated.  The  Association  now 
presents  a  few  of  the  instances  in  which  you  did  employ 
extra  counsel,  and  pay  them  from  the  City  Treasury. 

Last  summer  this  Association  applied  to  Charles  G. 
Cornell,  then  Street  Commissioner,  for  permission  to  ex- 
amine some  contracts  on  file  in  his  Department;  he  refused, 
and  a  mandamus  was  sued  out  to  compel  him  ;  the  Supreme 
Court,  after  hearing  what  he  had  to  say,  commanded  him 
to  allow  the  examination.  Now,  although  this  refusal  of 
Mr.  Cornell  was  a  personal  matter  -which  had  nothing  to  do 
with  the  rights  of  the  city,  yet  you  stepped  forth  without 
authority  and  retained  counsel  for  Mr.  Cornell,  and  paid 
such  counsel  a  fee  of  $150  out  of  the  City  funds  for  trying 
to  prevent  the  examination  of  the  papers  in  his  office  by 
the  citizens  of  New  York. 

In  the  year  1866,  a  certain  Mr.  O'Brien,  who  was 
duly  elected  to  the  office  of  Councilman,  was  refused  a 


11 


seat  in  the  Chamber  by  the  other  Councilmen.  He 
appeared  at  the  Supreme  Court  and  obtained  a  manda- 
mus, requiring  them  to  admit  him.  They  disobeyed  this 
order,  and  the  Court  fined  them  all  for  contempt.  Now, 
although  this  criminal  disobedience  of  the  Councilmen  was 
a  personal  matter,  and  not  an  official  duty,  you  engaged 
counsel  at  the  expense  of  the  city  to  appear  for  the  Coun 
cilmen,  and  try  to  relieve  them  from  the  penalty  they  had 
incurred  in  disregarding  the  mandate  of  the  Court. 

In  18G6,  Mr.  Pullman,  a  member  of  the  Common  Council, 
in  a  laudable  endeavor  to  save  the  city  the  expense  of  a  con- 
tract for  lighting  the  city  with  gas,  which  the  Common  Coun- 
cil were  about  to  make  for  twenty  years,  at  a  vast  outlay, 
brought  an  action  to  restrain  the  consummation  of  the 
wrong.  Instead  of  assisting  him  in  his  honest  effort,  you 
engaged  two  special  counsel  at  extravagant  fees,  and  paid 
them  out  of  the  City  Treasury,  to  try  and  dissolve  the  in- 
junction, and  allow  the  contract  to  be  made. 

In  1866  a  suit  was  commenced  by  a  member  of  the 
Common  Council  to  prevent  the  execution  by  the  Comp- 
troller of  a  certain  lease  of  premises  at  Nos  115  and  117 
Nassau  street,  from  Fernando  Wood,  for  ten  years,  at  an 
annual  rent  of  $18,000,  the  same  premises  being  worth  only 
$6,000  per  year,  as  certified  to  by  prominent  real-estate 
agents  in  this  city.  Instead  of  assisting  in  this  suit,  which 
would  have  saved  the  city  a  vast  expense,  you  interposed  a 
demurrer  to  the  complaint,  and  retained  eminent  counsel  to 
press  it,  with  the  design  of  checking  the  action  at  the  outset, 
and  preventing,  if  possible,  any  similar  suit  by  any  honest 
member  of  the  Common  Council  who  desired  to  stop  the 
scheme  of  his  colleagues. 

In  March,  1866,  an  application  was  made  by  a  citizen  of 
this  county  to  the  Board  of  Supervisors  to  allow  him  to 
inspect  the  papers,  records  and  accounts  pertaining  to  the 
construction  of  the  new  Court-House.    He  could  not  sec 


L2 


them,  however,  because  they  were  not  deposited  in  the  office 
of  the  Clerk  of  the  Board  as  they  are  required  to  be  by  the 
statutes  of  this  State,  but  were  kept  in  the  private  posses- 
sion of  the  Court- House  Committee.  He  therefore  applied 
to  the  Supreme  Court  for  a  mandamus  to  compel  the 
Supervisors  to  place  such  books,  papers  and  accounts  in 
their  Clerks  office,  to  be  there  open  to  public  inspection  as 
the  law  of  the  State  directs.  Although  this  was  a  just  and 
legal  request,  you  retained  eminent  counsel  at  an  expense 
of  $250,  (which  was  paid  out  of  the  City  Treasury,)  to  appear- 
in  the  Court  on  behalf  of  the  Supervisors  in  answer  to  this 
mandamus.  As,  however,  all  that  the  eminent  counsel  did  for 
his  $250  was  to  tell  the  Court  that  the  Supervisors  would 
obey  the  mandamus  and  put  the  papers  in  their  Clerk's 
office,  it  is  supposed  that  in  this  case  there  was  no  intention 
to  oppose  the  execution  of  the  law,  but  that  your  custom 
required  you  to  retain  and  pay  an  extra  lawyer  on  every 
pretext. 

The  Association  also  directs  your  attention  to  the  follow- 
ing remarkable  fact:  That,  in  the  last  twenty  months,  you 
employed  William  C.  Trull  (a  partner  in  the  law  firm  of 
Develin,  Miller  &  Trull),  as  counsel  in  behalf  of  the  city  in 
various  suits,  and  paid  him  the  sum  of  $9,775,  as  fees,  out 
of  the  City  Treasury.  Also,  that  at  the  same  time  you 
employed  Mr.  Miller  (another  partner  in  the  law  firm  of 
Develin,  Miller  &  Trull),  as  counsel  on  behalf  of  the  city, 
and  paid  him  $1,000  fees  out  of  the  City  Treasury.  It 
appears  by  examination  of  the  Court  records  that  at  this  very 
time  Mr.  Trull  and  Mr.  Miller,  and  their  firm  of  Develin, 
Miller  &  Trull,  were  busily  engaged  in  suing  the  city,  and 
recovering  judgments  against  it  for  the  advertising  claims  of 
the  New-  York  Transcript,  and  other  claims  of  other  persons, 
and  that  they  did  tJius  recover  judgments  against  the  city  to  the 
amount  of  $102,484.88. 

The  question   arises  whether  the  facility  with  which 


13 


Messrs.  Develin,  Miller  &  Trull  recovered  judgments  for 
$102,484.88  against  the  city  impressed  you  with  such  high 
sense  of  their  ability  that  }rou  employed  two  of  the  firm  to 
defend  the  city  against  other  claims  brought  by  persons 
who  did  not  happen  to  be  their  clients. 

It  happens  that  Mr.  Develin,  of  this  same  firm,  was  your 
immediate  predecessor  in  office,  and  Mr.  Trull  was  his 
assistant,  and  that  when  he  was  Corporation  Counsel  the 
New- York  Transcript  obtained  enormous  judgments  against 
the  city.  Also,  that  immediately  after  their  retirement 
from  the  post  you  now  hold  they  took  offices  in  the  same 
building  with  your  official  rooms,  and  on  the  same  floor,  and 
commenced  to  sue  the  city  on  the  claims  of  the  same  persons 
whom  they  should  have  defended  it  against  when  they  were 
in  power;  and  it  is  these  judgments  which  they  obtained 
against  the  city  that  you  urged  the  Comptroller  to  pay. 

The  following  is  a  statement  of  such  judgments  against 
the  city : 

Judgment  of  the  New-York  Transcript  (obtained  by  Develin. 

Miller  &  Trull),  June  12,  1866  832,508  40 

Judgment  of  A.  J.  McCool  (obtained  by  Develin,  Miller  & 

Trull),  October  27,1866   11,094  22 

Judgment  of  the  New-York  Transcript  (obtained  by  Develin. 

Miller  &  Trull),  January  3, 1867   34.710  G9 

Judgment  of  E.  B.  Simmons  (obtained  by  Develin.  Miller  & 

Trull),  January  11,1867   1,552  47 

Judgment  of  the  N tic-York  Transcript  (obtained  by  C.  E. 

Miller),  April  19,  1867   21.749  50 

The  following  is  the  statement  of  the  fees  paid  by  you  to 
those  two  lawyers  in  suits  wherein  you  employed  them  on 
behalf  of  the  city : 

Wm.  C.  Trull,  counsel  fees  in  twenty-eight  suits  $9,775 

C.  K.  Miller  in  one  suit   1.000 


But  it  appears  that  not  content  with  employing  extra 
counsel  on  so  many  occasions,  and  paying  them  from  the 


14 


City  Treasury,  you  finally  employed  yourself  as  your  own 
extra  assistant,  and  drew  the  sum  of  $10,000  in  that  capacity. 
It  appears  in  the  county  records  that,  in  the  present  year 
the  case  of  the  taxation  of  stockholders  of  city  banks  was 
determined  in  the  Supreme  Court  at  Washington,  and  that 
you  certified  to  a  bill  of  $30,000  for  counsel  fees,  $10,000 
of  which  you  certified  to  as  your  own  individual  fee  in  the 
case.  And  this  $10,000  was  paid  to  you.  Now,  the  Citi- 
zens' Association  presents  to  you  the  following  facts.  By 
the  Charter  of  the  City  of  New- York,  and  the  subsequent 
Acts  of  the  Legislature,  your  compensation  is  provided  for 


as  follows : 

Salary  as  Counsel  to  Corporation   $3,500 

Salary  in  lieu  of  fees  in  street  opening   6,500 

Allowance  for  Clerks  and  Assistants   12,000 

Salary  as  member  of  Board  of  Revision   J  ,000 

Salary  as  legal  adviser  of  the  Board  of  Supervisors   2,000 

Total  $25,000 


Of  this  sum  $13,000  goes  into  your  own  purse  every 
year,  and  as  much  more  as  you  can  save  in  clerk  hire.  The 
duties  which  you  are  required  to  perform  for  this  pay  are 
as  follows : 

u  To  have  charge  of  and  conduct  all  the  law  business  of  the  Corpora- 
tion and  of  the  departments  thereof,  and  all  other  law  business  in  which 
the  city  shall  be  interested  when  so  ordered  by  the  Corporation,  and 
have  charge  of  and  conduct  the  legal  proceedings  necessary  in  opening, 
widening  or  altering  streets,  and  draw  the  leases,  deeds  and  other  papers 
connected  with  the  Finance  Department.'' — (Charter  of  1857,  Sec.  16.) 

"  The  Counsel  to  the  Corporation  of  the  City  of  New- York  shall  be 
the  legal  adviser  of  the  Board  of  Supervisors,  and  shall  receive  such  com- 
pensation for  his  services  as  shall  be  fixed  by  said  Board.  Not  exceed- 
ing the  sum  of  82,000  per  annum.' '— (Laws  of  1857,  Chap.  590.) 

It  would  seem  that  the  foregoing  enumeration  of  duties 
which  are  paid  for  so  well,  embraced  all  possible  legal  ser- 
vices you  might  be  called  on  to  render.    You,  however, 


15 


thought  differently.  In  the  litigation  as  to  the  right  to  tax 
the  shares  of  stockholders  of  the  banks  by  the  county, 
which  was  finally  decided  in  favor  of  the  latter  by  the  Su- 
preme Court  at  Washington,  you  assisted  in  conducting  the 
proceedings  on  behalf  of  the  county,  as  it  was  your  duty  to 
do,  and  in  addition  to  certifying  to  a  bill  of  $20,000  of  two 
able  counsel,  to  the  astonishment  of  the  tax-payers  you  certified 
to  a  bill  made  out  by  yourself for  yourself  for  $10,000  for  legal 
services  in  this  litigation  !  The  Association  submits  that  this 
was  a  wrong,  perpetrated  upon  the  community. 

The  city  and  county  give  you  $13,000  a  year  for  your- 
self, $12,000  a  year  for  your  clerks,  $5,000  a  year  for  your 
office  rent,  and  $30,000  a  year  for  every  conceivable  expense 
besides,  and  yet  you,  for  a  matter  which  belongs  plainly  to 
the  scope  of  your  duties,  charge  and  take  $10,000  more. 
The  sum  of  $142,974.32  was  given  to  you  to  carry  on  the 
law  business  of  the  City  and  County  of  New- York  for 
twenty  months,  and  yet  you  demanded  and  received 
$10,000  additional. 

The  Association  is  aware  of  the  only  excuse  you  have  to 
offer  for  this  remarkable  act.  You  have  stated  that  in  the 
course  of  the  stockholders'  litigation  you  had  to  leave  the 
State  of  New-York  and  go  to  Washington  ;  that  this  was 
an  extra  service,  and  that  one  of  your  predecessors  in  office 
made  a  similar  charge  for  such  an  extra  service. 

To  this  the  Association  states  that  the  laws  which  pro- 
vide for  your  duties  and  your  pay  make  no  discrimination 
as  to  the  place  in  which  you  are  to  perform  those  duties; 
you  are  given  the  charge  of  all  the  law  business,  and  this 
excludes  che  idea  of  restrictions  about  that  kind  of  law 
business  that  can  be  performed  in,  and  that  which  must 
take  you  out,  of  the  State.  If  the  Corporation  Counsel  were 
to  conduct  the  legal  affairs  of  the  county  only  in  this  State, 
then  we  must  conclude  that  the  intention  was  to  allow  all 
that  part  of  them  which  might  be  taken  on  appeal  to  the 


16 


Supreme  Court  at  Washington  to  be  abandoned  on  the  part 
of  the  county  when  such  an  appeal  was  perfected.  An 
inference  of  that  sort  is  absurd;  the  Corporation  Counsel 
has  to  go  (without  extra  pay)  to  the  remotest  limits  of  the 
State,  at  a  sacrifice  of  time,  ease  and  comfort  greater  than 
that  he  has  to  make  in  going  to  Washington,  and  yet,  if 
the  unjust  rule  you  claim  were  to  be  allowed,  a  visit  by 
him  across  the  ferry  to  Jersey  City  would  be  the  subject  of 
a  heavy  extra  charge. 

As  to  the  other  part  of  your  excuse  that  one  of  your 
predecessors  in  office  made  a  similar  charge  in  a  similar 
case,  the  Association  begs  to  remind  you  that  you  were 
nominated  for  the  office  you  now  hold  by  this  Association  with 
the  solemn  assurance  on  your  part  that  you  would  administer 
its  functions  in  a  manner  totally  unlike  that  of  your  predeces- 
sors, and  that  you  would  begin  tliis  marked  difference  by  economy 
of  expenditure.  But  the  Association  sees,  with  pain,  that 
you  have  closely  imitated,  even  that  one  of  your  predeces- 
sors whom  it  was  forced  to  impeach  before  the  Governor  of 
the  State  of  New- York  in  the  month  of  September,  1865. 

The  following  are  the  chief  points  of  that  imitation  which 
require  explanation  : 

1.  Neglect,  in  refraining  to  take  appeals  to  the  higher  Courts  from 
doubtful  judgments  rendered  against  the  city. 

2.  Permit  ting  a  vast  number  of  judgments  to  be  recorded. 

3.  Extravagance  in  rent  and  oflice  appointments. 

4.  Patronage  of  frieuds  by  retaining  them  as  counsel  on  behalf  of  the 
city,  on  every  possible  occasion,  and  paying  them  enormous  fees. 

5.  Resistance  to  proceedings  taken  to  bring  local  officials  to  a  proper 
sense  of  their  duty. 

6.  Furthering  schemes  of  the  Leal  Government  which  were  calculated 
to  damage  the  city  and  citizens,  and  eniich  only  the  projectors  and  their 
friends. 

7.  Overcharging  for  the  services  you  performed,  in  violation  of  tho 
law. 


17 


8.  Advising  against  obedience  to  law,  a  public  official  of  the  Cor- 
poration. 

9.  Attendiug  upon  the  Legislature  at  Albany  to  enlarge  the  appro- 
priations for  your  office  and  yourself,  and  thus  increase  the  taxes. 

The  Association  now  desires  to  instance  the  sixth  of  the 
imitations  enumerated  above. 

To- do  this  it  is  only  necessary  to  mention  those  two  vast 
schemes  still  fresh  ,in  the  recollection  of  an  indignant  com- 
munity, called  11  The  Widening  of  Ann  Street"  and  u  The 
Church  Street  Extension;"  both  of  these  measures,  which 
awakened  the  most  intense  excitement  ever  known  in  our 
municipal  history,  and  which  the  Common  Council  hastened 
to  revoke  of  its  own  motion  after  the  unqualified  public 
condemnation  they  elicited,  you  endeavored  all  in  your 
power  to  carry  on  and  consummate,  regardless  of  the  pro- 
tests of  the  Press  and  the  public.  While  }*our  fellow- 
citizens  were  holding  indignation  meetings  to  concert  meas- 
ures for  checking  these  schemes,  fraught  with  so  much 
disaster,  you  steadily  and  ingeniously  labored  to  consum- 
mate them  by  every  art  and  power  your  official  position 
afforded  you. 

You  boldly  avowed  your  determination  to  push  the  first 
of  them  on,  and  when  the  Common  Council,  alarmed  by  the 
public  outcry,  contemplated  its  repeal,  you  went  to  Albany 
and  sought,  by  introducing  a  special  law  into  the  statute 
book,  to  make  the  consummation  of  the  scheme  more 
certain. 

All  this  requires  explanation. 

In  the  matter  of  the  " Extension  of  Church  Street"  you 
fought,  step  by  step,  with  voluntary  zeal,  the  citizens  who 
labored  to  break  up  that  unjust  measure,  which  imposed 
$3,000,000  of  assessments  upon  six  square  miles  of  property, 
and  which  was  unequalled  in  audacity  and  hardship  by  any 
scheme  from  which  the  people  of  the  City  of  Xew- York- 
have  suffered  ;  and  your  last  act  in  relation  to  it.  was  to 
3 


18 


propose  and  defend  a  bill  for  the  enormous  sum  of  $80,000 
for  the  clerical  labor  of  making  the  report  and  surveys  of 
the  Commissioners  of  Estimate.  Of  this  bill  the  Associa- 
tion speaks  last.  In  it  appears  a  charge  of  $28,000  for 
writing  out  and  copying  the  said  report.  That  report  con- 
sisted of  several  thousand  duplicate  printed  forms,  in  which 
one  or  two  lines  of  writing  were  filled  in.  The  whole  of  the 
printing  of  these  blanks  could  be  done  for  less  than  $1,000, 
and  the  written  filling'  would  be  amply  paid  for  by  another 
$1,000.  For  this,  however,  over  $28,000  was  charged. 
You  defended,  and  supported,  and  pressed  this  exorbitant 
charge,  which  the  tax-payers  .were  to  bear.  Your  prede- 
cessors in  office  attempted  no  such  wrongs ;  you  have  imi- 
tated them  only  to  surpass  them ;  and  your  record  to-day 
shows  that  in  the  twenty  months  you  have  been  in  office, 
you  have  steadily  increased  the  burden  of  the  tax-payers  of 
the  city,  and  have  proportionately  cost  them  more  than  any 
official  that  ever  held  your  office. 

It  is  with  more  than  ordinary  pain  and  regret  that  the 
Citizens'  Association  has  been  compelled,  in  the  strict  per- 
formance of  its  duties  and  pledges  to  this  heavily  taxed 
community,  to  present  the  above  summary  of  your  official 
acts,  and  ask  for  such  explanation  as  you  are  able  to  offer. 

Yours  respectfully, 

PETER  COOPER, 
President  Citizens1  Association  of  New  -  York. 

Richard  M.  Henry, 

Secretary. 


(Editorial  from  the  Tribune,  Nov.  19,  1867.) 


ADVICE  TO  OUR  LEGAL  ADVISER. 

It  appears  from  the  letter  of  the  Citizens'  Association  to 
Richard  O'Gorman,  Esq.,  Corporation  Counsel,  that  this 
officer,  though  nominated  for  his  present  office  by  the 
Citizens'  Association  on  a  Reform  ticket,  has  proven  to  be 
anything  else  but  a  reformer.  We  are  glad  that  when  their 
own  candidates  thus  turn  out  to  be  failures,  the  Citizens' 
Association  is  as  relentless  in  exposing  their  delinquencies 
as  if  they  were  elected  by  Tammany  or  Mozart. 

They  charge  that  Mr.  O'Gorman  is  spending  too  much 
money ;  that  what  he  does  expend  is  distributed  among  his 
frienefs,  more  manifestly  for  their  interests  than  for  that  of 
the  city,  and  that  in  some  instances  the  suits  under  his 
charge  show  lamentable  failure  in  the  law  department  to 
protect  the  city's  interests,  and  a  suspicious  acquiescence  in 
the  rendition  of  judgments  against  the  city,  and  in  their 
payment  by  the  Comptroller. 

Mr.  O'Gorman  appears  to  have  drawn  for  his  department, 
during  twenty  months,  the  heavy  sum  of  $152,974.32.  Of 
this  he  has  pocketed  $33,833.32  for  the  "  eloquent  and  per- 
suasive"'  Richard  O'Gorman  himself.  He  has  expended 
$24,199.15  on  office  furniture,  &c.  ;  he  has  distributed 
$86,611.50  among  his  professional  brethren  for  extra  coun- 
sel fees  and  clerk  hire,  and  has  used  up  $8,330.35  for  "  other 
purposes."  x^mong  the  extra  counsel  employed  by  Mr. 
O'Gorman,  Recorder  Hackett  seems  to  have  earned,  at  odd 
hours  while  off  the  bench,  $21,727.50,  or  about  two-thirds 
as  much  as  Mr.  O'Gorman  earned  by  the  employment  of  his 
whole  time,  and  four  or  five  times  as  much  as  the  city 


20 


deemed  to  be  an  adequate  compensation  for  his  duties  as 
Recorder.  It  seems  remarkable  that  a  Corporation  Counsel 
who  draws  more  than  a  hundred  dollars  a  day  for  all  work- 
ing days,  "  rain  or  shine/'  for  attending  to  the  lawsuits  of 
the  city,  should  need  professional  aid  to  the  value  of  two 
hundred  dollars  a  day,  and  clerk  hire  to  the  value  of  about 
seventy -five  dollars  more  a  day.  Cannot  the  city  get  beaten 
in  its  lawsuits  at  a  cheaper  rate  than  five  hundred  dollars  a 
day?  And  is  it  not  marvelous  that  Eecorder  Hackett,  after 
his  arduous  labors  of  the  day  are  over,  and  he  steps  down, 
wearied  and  exhausted,  from  the  bench,  can  11  assist''  the 
Corporation  Counsel  to  the  tune  of  about  seventy  dollars 
daily.  Is  not  the  Recorder  in  danger  of  taxing  his  consti- 
tution too  severely  by  these  unseasonable  labors  in  behalf 
of  the  city  " 'neath  the  midnight  lamp.*'  Such  a  compen- 
sation would  indicate  heavy  draughts  either  upon  the  u  mid- 
night oil"  or  the  "oil  of  palms." 

Moreover,  the  eloquent  and  learned  O'Gorman,  after 
drawing  on  the  Treasury  for  every  Yankee  notion  and  Irish 
nicknack  needed  in  his  office,  from  Walnut  desks  to  papers 
of  pins,  (Query — What  becomes  of  all  the  pins  ?)  and  from 
Referees'  fees  down  to  subpoena  money,  finds  yet  the  "  con- 
tingent expenses  of  office,"  for  nameless  and  unexplained 
necessities,  amounting  to  $8,330.  No  items  of  these  ex- 
penses, amounting  to  about  thirty  dollars  per  diem,  are 
given.  Thirty  dollars  a  day  would  buy  a  very  exhilarating 
supply  of  champagne  and  cigars;  and,  under  the  intense 
fatigues  incident  to  the  office  of  Corporation  Counsel,  we 
have  not  the  heart  to  veto  any  little  stimulants  that  may 
be  needed  by  "classic  and  eloquent"  barristers  for  their 
"stomach's  sake  and  their  other  infirmities."  But  it  would 
be  agreeable  to  a  sympathizing  public  to  be  trustworthily 
assured  (a  simple  statement,  not  under  oath,  will  cover  the 
point)  that  the  learned  Counsel  of  the  City  have  not  been 
compelled  to  rob  their  private  treasuries  of  money  needed 


21 


for  public  use,  in  the  purchase  of  cigars  that  are  smoked 
ex-ojjicio,  and  champagne  that  is  drunk  by  the  learned 
counsel  in  his  municipal  capacity,  as  the  legal  adviser  of  the 
Corporation,  and  not  in  his  individual  and  private  relations 
as  the  Hon.  Richard  0 'Gorman.  We  have  always  favored 
"  internal  improvements"  as  a  public  policy,  and  we  would 
be  the  last  to  charge  that  a  judicious  internal  application 
of  these  creature  comforts  at  the  expense  of  the  city,  whose 
economical  government,  we  know,  is  ever  uppermost  in 
Mr.  O'Gorman's  breast,  could  be  stigmatized  as  Gorman- 
dizing. 

In  one  instance,  Mr.  O'Gorman  seems  to  have  retained  a 
law  firm  to  defend  the  city,  wt1io,  in  other  cases,  were  en- 
gaged in  recovering  heavy  judgments  against  the  city ;  but  it 
is  to  be  hoped — and  by  those  who  confide  in  Mr.  O'Gorman 
as  a  reformer,  it  is  to  be  trusted — that  the  several  suits  were 
kept  distinct,  and  that  the  compensation  they  received  for 
defending  the  city  did  not  go  to  pay  the  expenses  they  in- 
curred in  prosecuting  it.  Notwithstanding  Mr.  O'Gorman's 
arduous  defence  of  the  city,  judgments  amounting  to 
$474,589.78  have  been  obtained  against  the  city  during  his 
term.  Of  these,  the  Citizens'  Association  attempts  to  show 
that  about  $200,000  of  judgments  were  obtained  in  defiance 
of  law,  and  should  have  been  reversed  on  appeal,  but  that 
Mr.  O'Gorman  advised  that  they  be  paid  in  full !  The 
fact  that  Mr.  O'Gorman  certified  a  bill  in  his  own  favor  for 
$10,000,  extra  services  rendered  by  himself  in  arguing  the 
case  of  the  Taxation  of  Bank  Stockholders,  at  Washington, 
is  also  demurred  to  by  the  Citizens'  Association.  They 
seem  to  think  that,  though  Mr.  O'Gorman's  predecessors 
might  "  certify"  bills  for  extra  services  in  their  own  favor, 
it  is  slightly  irregular  for  Mr.  O'Gorman,  as  a  reform  can 
didate,  to  do  so. 

Various  other  charges  of  expensiveness  are  made  against 


the  "  classic  and  eloquent7'  O'Gorman,  which  show  that  the 
Citizens'  Association  is  seriously  intermeddling  in  matters. 
We  advise  Mr.  O'Gorman  to  vindicate  his  purity  as  a  reform 
candidate,  or  the  Reformers  may  nominate  a  cheaper  man 
next  time.  The  integrity  of  a  candidate  of  the  Citizens' 
Association  should  be,  like  Caesar's  wife,  above  suspicion. 


Avery  Architectural  and  Fine  Arts  Library 
Gift  of  Seymour  B.  Durst  Old  York  Library 


iEx  Htbrta 


SEYMOUR  DURST 


